Martin Hong

So you still have to get the recorder plus the ssd. Maybe $9000 is not the best deal?

That seems odd, usually you can change the volume separately when you record using the input 1 & 2, but onboard mic only works together. Check if your stereo mic is set the the same degree, probably one is on 120 and the other 90. I guess.

Have you tried crystal?

I have a nikon and a PL adapter. Both dumb adapters, but works for me. I don't like using still lenses though just because the ring to adjust aperture has no markings (can't really) and has too short of a throw. And I hate using still lenses for pulling focus and what-not. But I have one anyway just because I have a bunch of Nikon lenses I'd like to be able to use if needed. /endminirantonstilllenses

 

Just make sure you spend a little money on an adapter if you're going to be using Canon lenses though. You want to make sure it'll hold up and is free of leaks and all that.

 

If you do switch to Sony lenses, at least you'll have stabilization and all the control that goes with it. There's a metabones adapter for Canon that a lot of people use and seems to work well, and that does transfer some [no AF] functions over.

http://www.metabones.com/product/sony-nex

Thanks Travis

Because i am more photographer for now than videographer, that's why i am aiming on still lenses rather than Sony Lenses, not like i am making a fortune with what i am doing, hence i give priority to photography, obviously if things go well i'd rather get the Sony lenses to avoid problem.

What about the focusing, seems that adapter has the electronic contact, the focusing is fast or there are some problem with the motor?

I am considering on getting this one, but i own Canon lenses and not sure if its worth to get the Sony lenses.. Have anybody tried an EF adapter on Sony's camera?

Tape or film?

I haven't recorded anything with tape for about 3 years. Since digital became cheaper and had better quality

Digital Bolex and Black Magic are both S16 format, DB comes with a limitation of ISO range of 100, 200, 400. As for Black Magic Cinema there no official data about it.

Nikon D800 is a great DSLR when it comes to the still photography, but as for the video, you can find footage comparing to the Canon's, Canon slightly has better image quality (not on 4:2:2, tested footage from camera) Specially the sensitivity. When you use high ISO on the camera you'd get noise. Another thing to consider comparing to the other two cameras that is the Full Frame size, despite that it uses Line Skipping (another artifact to consider)

So that you have: Imagery Area vs. Sensibility vs. Color depth

As for the VFS work, 4:4:4 12bit seems more likely what you are looking for.

Well 8 bit color depth is good enough for TV production, i think thats where they aimed at the first place, since you only have 24fps with 4K. Then in the scene where the actors are running in the street, shot on 1080p 60fps, so 4K wasn't there, which means the final project was brought down or was meant to be 1080p in the first place.

Once again the remarkable performance of this camera is the sensitivity, lots of night scenes with natural ambient light around, no noticeable noise in the footage, just like the C300 / 5D MarkIII...

Still a DSLR is a DSLR, they were designed to take photography, and as for the price, I dont think $15,000 is the right one, since the 1Dx is less than the half of it: $6,800, basically you are buying a 1Dx with 4K recording on it.

The title of this topic is very confusing, how desperate you are? Have you tried to get some financial support from someone else for this project? are you the only one in the course who can't afford the film stocks?

Either way you can have a try with some cheaper alternative, like the LomoKino, is fairly cheap and uses 135 35mm film, that you can still get for a good price in the market. There are limitations, but surely you can do something better with it when you have dedication to what you want to do.

http://microsites.lomography.com/lomokino/

Hi Morgan, haven't tested the new 5D mark III yet, but Nikon D800 offers uncompressed HDMI signal that you can use an external recorder for better codec. Still picture wise, Nikon D800 has 36.3 megapixels while 5D Mark III has 22.3 megapixels. However 5D Mark III offers significant improved auto focus system and up to 6 pictures per second.

Also one thing to consider is that 5D Mark III is about 500 dollars more than Nikon D800.

as a video shooter, i expected more from the 5d mark III, like clean HDMI with 422 codec, swivel screen, 1080 60p.

maybe they didnt make the swivel screen because of the weather sealing feature, i understand that.

but how about other features? if i was a mark II owner i wouldnt change it,only if magic lantern hack it and add those features, so by then i would go for a change to benefit from the moiré and aliasing reduction which i find pretty awesome features on the 5d III.

Same here, except the Digic 5 processor, and some slight upgrade, 22.3 megapixel isnt much an upgrade form the MarkII, unlike the new D800 and it does have uncompressed HDMI signal output

Great camera for studio photography, although the video doesn't mark big difference, seen the shorts shot on this camera, Joy Ride was more likely shown how well the performance is under low light situation, but not impressive, because Canon is there already. But, there's an uncompressed HDMI output, still no words how well it does, or can handle 422 recording... gotta wait a little bit.

Looks like an interesting story.. Says that its a short film.. where can i watch this?

I definitely support SOPA.

 

Those thieving little bastards have stolen both of my feature films and made them available for download on dozens of sites. If someone walked into Walmart and stole a Dogfather DVD we call that theft and the person can be arrested. What's the difference between that type of theft and watching my movie for free via a on-line piracy site?

 

The problem is so out of control that to sit and do nothing is inexcusable. I realize people have concerns over SOPA, but the days when the web was the wild West and anything goes are coming to an end. It needs to be regulated just the same as TV, radio, and print are regulated. We accept regulations on other mediums, why not the internet as well?

 

Everyone here should be concerned about on-line piracy, it makes it that much harder for producers to get projects into production. Especially lower budget shows that many people on this forum need to get their feet wet in the industry.

 

I don't understand why people are calling SOPA internet "censorship." How is preventing people from stealing someone else's property censorship? We don't call the laws preventing someone from stealing my car censorship.

 

Additionally, several of these off shore sites I have dealt with have offices, staff, and make a fortune selling adds around the links to the torrents. All the while they argue, "well we're like Google, we just show people where the content is, we don't host it."

 

Gimme a freakin' break, these people know exactly what they are doing, and they know they are clearly profiting from illegal activity.

 

One company I contacted suggested I add a Pay Pal link to his site and ask his members to pay a dollar or two before they watch my movie. Because the problem was so out of control he could not stop his own members from re-uploading my movie every time he took it down.

 

What a freaking joke! So "thieving little bastards" may sound harsh. In my view I should be calling these people a lot worse!!

 

So go SOPA!

 

R,

Richard,

I don't know if you have read both bills clear.. I personally support the anti-piracy act, the websites that stream, or provide download to the copyrighted contents should be taken down. However, SOPA/PIPA go beyond than that, let me give you an example.

Shane Hurlbut, ASC, the cinematographer, that updates contents to his website and blogs, with his works provides people acknowledges of his works and personal experiences, he sometimes would post some clips/images of the movies he worked on as DOP, explaining what he did there with all the details. Now according to the new SOPA/PIPA bills, he's guilty by uploading those images and materials that, of course he doesn't hold the copyright of them, even he did work on them. By that means, all those studios/productions that support the SOPA/PIPA will automatically sue him, and worse thing is, he can't defend himself, as one section of the bills states.

So you see, instead of fighting smartly against the piracy, this one acts more like dropping bomb everywhere till the piracy dies, causing significant collateral damages. Is it effective? i'd say no. Again, i recall, I support the anti-piracy act, but it should hit those place where should be hit, not using a big bomb to see if you get lucky.

Of course, its all theoretically speaking, we'd have to see first how it will affect the internet and some other business.

More: What Google has to say about it

https://www.google.com/landing/takeaction/sopa-pipa/

First of all, apology for those who got tired about talking SOPA/PIPA bills over internet. But as most of the member on Cinematography.com are from the filmmaking/audiovisual industry, one of the biggest victims from the online piracy, I thought I'd like to hear what you guys have to say about this two bills that had become viral and so controversial.

For those who hasn't learned what SOPA/PIPA is about and why it cause big fuss, here's a brief explanation of why it's not welcome by the internet users.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tzqMoOk9NWc

I personally support the anti-piracy act, but not this way, those bills are very bad written, and in extreme stupid way, that affects to those who has nothing to do with the piracy. I mean, if you want to fight piracy you gotta fight it smartly, not use extreme lethal force that cause big collateral damage, that could even slow the economy as the internet business receives a big block, and that is called, restriction to the freedom of speech....

"fake" the aspect ratio? You might need to do some research about aspect ratio before you ask something like that

For me, it's always smarter when you try to figure to achieve some visual effects without using CGI.

That opening scene is awesome, very well done, in a genius way. It'd be very different if it was done by CGI, and definitely would look faker.

I am the guy who supports the use of model and optical illusions, etc., to achieve a visual effects.. Rather than going to CGI without using your brain to figure what you can do in the physical world to created some visual effect. CGI should be saved for the last when you can't achieve something in real world..

Batmobile in Christopher Nolan's Batman movies wouldn't look real if it was created in CGI and not real scale model.

You should continue the world with models!

Sure, but imagine those in the wind though...

lol yeah, that's why i said its not wind friendly

I still can't find any details from the inside construction.. Since i would like to experiment with something

They don't put an actual lamp inside the balloon, just the globe, and whatever fitting it requires. They are often fitted with a mix of tungsten and HMI globes. Helium is an inert gas, so no problems with the heat. Obviously you don't switch the globes on until the balloon is inflated or you'd burn the fabric.

I knew that they don't put the entire lamp inside.. but curious how its wired and mounted inside.. We are talking about HMI and tungsten, those are tricky to handle, just as you said, i presume that the fabric isn't that heat resistant.

Hmmmm, you're just rigging in reverse

 

I suppose its nice in that you can 'counterweight' the lamps weight and have a near neutral object - but you still have to lock it off in three dimensions which might involve some rigging fun

Chris, what i meant was something like this

For a overhead light it becomes easier since you dont need heavy duty rigs or cranes..

Flying mattress in action...

Does a very great job and eliminating the rigging problem.. Although not windy day friendly

Recently i just found out about this cool lighting gear by Airstar.. they have balloon, fly mattress light that are amazing to be in the place where no other light can be..

But a question came to my mind.. how'd they fit the light in a flying balloon? Can't find tech spec on their website: http://www.airstar-light.com/corporate/en/cinema-tv-photo

So i presume that the balloons are using helium, but how'd they manage to fit the light inside that's powerful enough.. with the heat problem? Helium is stable with heat going around?

Just curious about how they work... anybody care to explain? thanks!

I think they were relying on the slipping background plate to distract you from any of that scene

You mean Angelina Jolie :o

Hey, have you seen the movie The Tourist with Johnny Depp and Angelina Jolie?

This is how it looks in a movie..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t8yIX2afs3Q

And later there's another scene where he tells her that it's an e-cigarret

So its up to you to judge if it weather looks like real or not

I personally think, that Kodak needs to know how to evolve and adjust to the new digital era..

I mean, is always about money, small productions won't go to films because the budget, that's why digital is taking the place.. More and more bigger productions are starting to do the same, saves money and some time. Think about what happened to the film photography camera, professional and photography lovers are still using them, but they are not enough for Kodak to invest money on that to produce insignificant amount of film just for them. They why they stopped.

Also think about what happened to Blockbuster, I think they didn't know how to adopt to the new digital era, internet and new generation TV took them down. I think a drastic change is needed to overcome this...